Filed: Dec. 22, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7436 BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE DEEDS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-705-7) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benja
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7436 BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE DEEDS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-705-7) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7436
BENJAMIN HENDERSON JONES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE DEEDS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-99-705-7)
Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 22, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin Henderson Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Henderson Jones, a Virginia inmate, appeals from the
district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). The district court dis-
missed the petition without prejudice because Jones failed to dem-
onstrate that he had exhausted his available state court remedies.
Because the instant petition is Jones' second § 2254 petition, see
Jones v. Angelone,
94 F.3d 900 (4th Cir. 1996), Jones must seek
authorization from this court before filing a second or successive
§ 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 1999). We
therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap-
peal on that ground. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2